The Instigator
Christfollower
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ToasterMinistry
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 120664
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Christfollower

Pro

Does God exist? I believe so.
1st round is acceptance only.
2nd round is opening statements.
3rd and 4th round are rebuttals.
5th round is closing statements.
ToasterMinistry

Con

Hey Christfollower! Nice seeing you again. Anyways, Let us just call this a friendly debate, And so I do not want to change your mind in any way.

I accept your debate and will be arguing why I believe God does not exist.
Debate Round No. 1
Christfollower

Pro

Reasons to Believe in God
I want to pick up two observations which I think give us good reason to think there is a God. First, The existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God. Second, The existence of objective moral values is better explained by the existence of God.

The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.
I will begin by laying out the argument:

1. There are things which come into existence.
Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.
There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.
Therefore, There exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, The first cause always existed.
Let us look at each of the steps in the argument:

Premise 1. "There are things which come into existence. "
Many things have come into existence. This article is coming into existence as I write it. You came into existence and so did I. This premise is not uncontroversial.

Premise 2. "Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else. "
It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence. Anything that causes itself to come into existence has to exist before it exists. This is impossible. Perhaps something can come into existence from Nothing without any cause whatsoever. Can a thing just pop into existence with absolutely no cause? This also does not seem reasonable.
I have three children. If I walk into the dining room and see a picture of Pinky and the Brain which is drawn on the wall in Permanent Magic Marker I will ask "Where did this picture come from? " My daughter Elizabeth (who is almost five) might say "It came from nothing, Dad. Nothing caused it. It just popped there. I think it is quite strange " don"t you? " Will I accept this? No! Things do not come into existence from Nothing without cause. So, We have good reason to think that premise two is true. Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.

Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. "
Is the series of past causes infinite? Can the universe have an infinite past? The answer is that it cannot. First, There are philosophical reasons to think the past cannot be infinite. Second, There are scientific reasons which support this view.
About the Universe, There are only three alternatives:
1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.
2. The universe was popped into existence from nothing with absolutely no cause.
3. The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.

We have strong reason to reject the first two alternatives.

Alternative Three is the most reasonable. There was a first cause. This cause existed eternally. It initiated the big bang and created the universe. Now what can we know about this cause? Why think the cause is God? I will briefly sketch a few implications.

First, The first cause is not a part of the space-time physical universe because it caused the space time universe to begin. Therefore it is outside of space and time. It is not physical. Second, It has a great deal of power. Third, It is a personal agent. This means it is not an inert force but it must have aspects of person hood; namely, That it wills. How do we know this? This is because it is the best answer to the question of why the Big Bang happened when it did. Why not sooner? Why not later? All of the conditions for producing the Big Bang existed from eternity. The only kind of cause we know of that can initiate an effect when all of the conditions are already present is the will of a personal agent.

I have not argued that it is logically impossible that the universe popped into existence from nothing without cause. I have argued that it is more reasonable to hold that it has a cause and that this cause is a non-physical personal agent " God.

So it seems that the first argument is fairly strong. The existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God.

The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the Existence of God.
People experience a sense of morality that leads them to hold strongly that certain things are right or wrong for all people in all cultures. For example, It is wrong to torture another person just for fun. It is wrong for me today. It is wrong for a citizen of the Philippines and it was wrong for someone living in 500 BC. Our moral sense provides strong reason to believe in a personal God.

It will help clarify what I am saying if we put it into the form of an argument.

If there is no God, There are no objective moral values.
There are moral values which are objective.
Therefore, God exists.

Before I discuss this argument, I must make it clear that I am not claiming that one must believe in God in order to be moral. I am not claiming that statistically those who believe in God are more moral than those who do not. I am also not claiming that our knowledge of morality depends upon God. This argument is to the effect that objective moral values themselves are foreign to a universe without God. They do not fit.

Defending Premise 1. "If there is no God, There are no objective moral values. "
I have to admit that this claim is quite controversial and many philosophers disagree with me. I think, However, That objective moral values are not sufficiently explained in a universe without God. Many have agreed with this claim. For example, Dostoevski had Ivan Karamazov claim, "If there is no God, Everything is permitted. " Sartre wrote of Dostoevski"s statement, "That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, Everything is permissible if God does not exist, And as a result man is forlorn, Because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. " [see his essay Existentialism] John Mackie " probably the best philosophical atheist of the twentieth century recognizes this: "[Objective moral values] constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, Without an all-powerful god to create them. If, Then, There are such intrinsically prescriptive objective values, They make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them [The Miracle of Theism, Pp 115-116. ]

Mackie recognizes that these objective values do not fit in the universe if there is no God. His answer, Since he rejects God, Is to claim that there are no objective moral values. His book on ethics is appropriately titled Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. I agree with Dostoevski, Sartre and Mackie. If there is no God, There are no objective moral values.

Defending Premise 2. "There are objective moral values. "
We know there are objective moral values. By this I mean that the content of morality is not determined by the individual, Or by culture. Rather some things are objectively wrong. Other things are objectively obligatory. Actions such as rape, Racist discrimination and torturing an innocent baby to death for no reason are really wrong. Furthermore, It is wrong for me to do these no matter when I live and no matter from what culture I come.

Now many people believe that morality is not objective. This view comes in three basic varieties.

1. The individual determines morality.
If the individual determines morality, Then if I believe it is morally permissible to steal your stereo and beat up your girlfriend, It is permissible for me to do it. But it is not permissible for me to beat up your girlfriend. Therefore, The individual does not determine morality.

2. Society determines morality.
If I lived in a completely racist society, Would racism be right for me? Not at all. When an American university student protests against South Africa"s policy of apartheid, He is assuming that morality is not determined by society. It is transcendent of cultures. All of our greatest heroes have been men and women who have stood up to society"s wrongs and appealed to a morality that is transcendent to society in order to demand change. If society determines morality, It is always morally wrong to criticize society. There is no morality outside of society which can form the basis of a moral critique.

3. Morality has survival value.
Some people claim that the reason we have this moral sense is that it helped the human race survive. Those individuals with moral sense grouped together for mutual protection and these did better than those without the moral sense. This is a kind of prehistoric social contract theory of morality. The problem with this is that we do not need morality to survive today. In fact, If you and I know that morality has no objective validity and the rest of our culture still thinks it is valid, We can take advantage of this to get the most we can. There is no moral reason to refrain from rape, Robbery and murder.

These inadequate objections show that our sense is that there is a morality that is trans-personal, Trans-cultural and trans-temporal The existence of a personal God is the best explanation for this. It is not up to the individual or the culture whether it is permissible to rape simply for fun. Any individual who believes it is morally permissible to rape for fun has a false belief. Any culture whose moral guidelines include the claim that it is permissible to rape for fun has simply got it wrong.

If it is true that Hitler was morally wrong, It is true that there are objective moral truths which are trans-cultural. If it is true that it was wrong for Romans to leave baby girls to die on the trash heaps " simply because they were girls, Then morality is not determined by culture. If it is true that Martin Luther King was a moral hero because he criticized his own culture by appealing to objective morality, Then it is true that morality is not determined by culture. The summary of this argument will be in the comments because I am out of characters. Thank you for debating. I challenge you to debunk my claims.
ToasterMinistry

Con

Right, So you start off by saying: "Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else". That is not true in the least. Do you know what the scientific term "Emergence" is? It is when a group of things come together to form something better. It is how cells, The smallest form of life, Came to exist. Cells came from non-living things, Which means that your first argument is garbage.

Also, I am very concerned about your second premise.

Re: "It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence. Anything that causes itself to come into existence has to exist before it exists. This is impossible. "

What? You are saying that nothing can exist if there is nothing, So can you tell me how God came to exist? Your arguments don't even make sense and contridict each other.


Right. Your third premise tells us about 3 options we have to explain how the universe came to be:

Re: "1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.
2. The universe was popped into existence from nothing with absolutely no cause.
3. The universe was caused to exist by something outside it. "

Yes, I agree with you that the first is very unlikely. But I am not sure about the second. Of course, The odds of such a great and beautiful universe was unlikely, But what if we, As a universe, Made it out? If we assume that there is no cause to the universe, That means that God would not be real as well. I don't really see why the 2nd option is wrong. You don't even tell us why the second cause is unlikely.

You also say:

Re: "If there is no God, There are no objective moral values.
There are moral values which are objective.
Therefore, God exists. "

Okay then. . . How does moral values prove God exists? You really need to explain your logic, Or I can't even refute it. This basically means that from that point on, I really don't know what to say. So in round 3, Explain your logic, Unless you have none.



Now for some of my points.


First, There are a lot of inconsistancies and mysteries within the Bible. Even on the freaking first page!
According to the Bible, God says "Let there be light" and light appears. But God hasn't created stars or anything that makes light yet! How could God create light without creating a lightsource? This defies physics and basic common sense. However, Not only does the Bible contain inconsistancies, But it also contridicts reality. I trust that you kind of know what is in the Bible, So you probably know about The Great Flood, Even I know it. According to most bible scholars, The flood came around 2300 BCE. The Bible also tells us that all beings were exterminated. Everything, From civilizations to animals were exterminated except Noah, Noah's family, And some animals with him. So then why didn't civilizations just dissapear? For example, We are finding Egyptian artifacts before and after The supposedly "Great Flood". Even if such a flood took place, Why do the Egypts before and after the flood literally have the same culture and everything? Where is the evidence, From fossils to geographical differences, That such a flood took place 4000 years ago? But the biggest hitter, I think, Is the fact that The Bible claims that the world is less than 10 thousand years old, Even though we find fossils dated millions of years back.


My second argument is about all the horrible things that happened to mankind. Why did World War 1 and 2 happen? Couldn't God stop such a massive loss of life and suffering? If he is so powerful and omnipotent, Then why do we need to pray for God? Doesn't God already know what we want? Why is he making us waste our time telling him what we want when he already knows what we want? Why are there Christians that suffer all the time? Shouldn't they be well off?

In the end, Your arguments were a bit weird and weak and you can't really refute the inconsistancies of the Bible.





Debate Round No. 2
Christfollower

Pro

My opponent states:
"You go into Carbon dating. What the hell? Modern paleontologists use radiometric dating methods literally all of the time. "
After 10 seconds of searching radiometric dating on google, I found that it is a different name for radiocarbon dating which is basically carbon-14 dating.
The oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50, 000 years ago.

My opponent also states:
"If you think your statement is true, Please give some reasons. "

I'll give you some reasons if you give me reasons for all your arguments.

Here are a few.

1. Humans will never have the cognitive capacity to directly understand anything with infinite powers or qualities.

2. Humans will never have intellectual reasons to indirectly demonstrate the existence of anything with infinite powers or qualities.

3. There are only two kinds of proofs for God: direct understanding or indirect demonstration.

I will keep my conclusion short.
I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists. I have, However, Provided good reasons to think that He does. If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist. He must first, Provide an answer for each of my arguments and second, He must offer arguments that God does not exist. Until He does this, We can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist.
ToasterMinistry

Con

Holy crap. Make your arguments clear next time. We were literally arguing about two different topics. However, I correctly interpreted the debate. I do have arguments saying that God doesn't exist, And it is about the Bible that I literally said before and you probably didn't care to read.


"According to the Bible, God says "Let there be light" and light appears. But God hasn't created stars or anything that makes light yet! How could God create light without creating a lightsource? This defies physics and basic common sense. However, Not only does the Bible contain inconsistancies, But it also contridicts reality. I trust that you kind of know what is in the Bible, So you probably know about The Great Flood, Even I know it. According to most bible scholars, The flood came around 2300 BCE. The Bible also tells us that all beings were exterminated. Everything, From civilizations to animals were exterminated except Noah, Noah's family, And some animals with him. So then why didn't civilizations just dissapear? For example, We are finding Egyptian artifacts before and after The supposedly "Great Flood". Even if such a flood took place, Why do the Egypts before and after the flood literally have the same culture and everything? Where is the evidence, From fossils to geographical differences, That such a flood took place 4000 years ago? "


You have never refuted it, So the point still stands.
Debate Round No. 3
Christfollower

Pro

Christfollower forfeited this round.
ToasterMinistry

Con

Oh my, For some reason my server isn't working. It keeps saying for me to repose things I already posted. So this is my Round 4.

"For this debate, I am not going to let my faith influence me. I did not specify which God I am trying to prove the existence of. "

Right, Christfollower. There is a difference between: "Does God exist? " and "Does a God exist? " The first means does the God in the Bible exist, The second means some God exists, Whether it be the one believed by Buddists or Christians or Muslims. Your title is the first one, Meaning that you did specify which God you are trying to prove the existance of.

Also, You haven't refuted all my arguments. Please give me a say on them, Or I would assume that you can't come back to it.

'"Humans will never have intellectual reasons to indirectly demonstrate the existence of anything with infinite powers or qualities. "'
That is not true. "

It is true. How can something with a limited understanding of the universe understand how a being like God? God knows everything and is perfect, While humans can never. If you think your statement is true, Please give some reasons.

"3. There are only two kinds of proofs for God: direct understanding or indirect demonstration.
Have you thought of direct demonstration? You know, Visions, Miracles. . . . . Etc"

The issue is whether any of those people actually experienced some infinite properties or qualities of God, Or only thought they did. Could they understand what is really happening to them? These "mystical experiences" are almost always described as involving all loss of sense of embodiment and finitude, Becoming something inexpressibly vaster. But these experiences can easily be induced by isolation, Meditation, Drugs, Falling asleep, Or getting hit in the head. No human has the cognitive capacity to understandably distinguish between a genuine encounter with God from a pseudo-encounter.
Debate Round No. 4
Christfollower

Pro

Christfollower forfeited this round.
ToasterMinistry

Con

Well that's unfortunate. . .
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 3 years ago
kwagga_la
@ToasterMinistry - You said: "According to the Bible, God says "Let there be light" and light appears. But God hasn't created stars or anything that makes light yet! How could God create light without creating a lightsource? "

It is a logical fallacy to assume that light requires the stars and sun etc. In order to be able to exist. Electricity can provide light, Lightning can generate light etc. Without requiring the sun or stars to be it's source.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Christfollower,

Your silence upon which primitive god concept you follow is deafening! Are you that embarrassed to answer a very simple question? I know, Maybe you need other pagan gods to choose from, Is that it?

Therefore, Here is an ongoing list of truly pagan gods to choose from in the primitive Bronze and Iron Ages:

Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Yahweh, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma"at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac and Zaramama, Vera.

Christfollower, Did you see the pagan god that you talk about in the list above? Yes?
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Christfollower,

Your included definition: God definition: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

This describes the primitive AND BLATANTLY DIFFERENT god concepts that I gave you, Therefore, Which god are you talking about?

1. Yahweh
2. Jesus
3. Allah
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
Summary of my Round 1 argument.
I have briefly presented two arguments for the existence of God. These show that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists than that He does not exist.

A. The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.
B. The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the Existence of God.

So we see that some of the things we observe about the natural world ground a strong inference to the claim that God does exist. This gives us reason to consider with renewed openness the possibility that God has entered the space-time universe and revealed Himself through the person and life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists. I have, However, Provided good reasons to think that He does. If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist. He must first, Provide an answer for each of my arguments and second, He must offer arguments that God does not exist. Until He does this, We can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist.
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
@21stceturylconoclast
I am not referring to any God. I am debating the question if A God exists.
God definition: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Why is it so hard for the inept religionist like CHRISTFOLLOWER to simply state "which god" they are referring to in the debate?

The pseudo-christian acts as though there is only one god, Whereas in the primitive Bronze and Iron Age there were many horrific gods, Whereas the remaining mythical gods from this era today are Yahweh, Jesus, And Allah. Remember, The term "GOD" is a title only, Like president, Or Vice President, Whereas the name of the specific president has a name! Therefore, The religionist shows disrespect to their choice of god when they do not name it!

Christfollower, Therefore which god are you referring too?

1. Yahweh
2. Jesus
3. Allah
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.